UOI Vs. MUKUL GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT , through his father, filed an application under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 ( "the Act", for short) before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/ - from the appellant in respect of the injuries suffered by him in an accident relating to 2DPM passenger train on 15th November, 2009 at about 7:30 pm at Azadpur railway station. At the time of filing of petition appellant was a minor. During pendency of the petition, respondent attained the age of majority and continued to pursue the matter. After the trial, Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,40,000/ - to respondent together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till payment is made.

(2.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the impugned judgment. It is contended that judgment is erroneous and not in conformity with the evidence adduced by the parties. Adverse inference was drawn against the appellant for not producing the DRM report. Statement of RW -1, Shri Sohan Lal, Guard of the train, was totally overlooked. RW1 had deposed that no 'untoward incident' took place at Azadpur railway station relating to 2DPM passenger train which falsified the story as propounded by the respondent. It is further contended that Tribunal has wrongly accepted the deposition of respondent that his right leg below knee and one finger of right hand were amputated in the accident even in absence of 'permanent disability certificate'. It is further contended that respondent was not a bona fide passenger, since no journey ticket was recovered from him. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that respondent had categorically deposed that on 15th November, 2009 at about 7 pm he boarded 2DPM passenger train at Adarsh Nagar railway station after purchasing a Rs. 2/ - ticket. There was huge rush in the compartment, therefore, he was standing near the gate and when train reached near Azadpur railway station, he fell down from the compartment of running train and came in between the platform and train, resulting in amputation of his right leg and one finger of his right hand. He fell down due to sudden jerk from the train. It is contended that testimony of respondent had remained unshattered in his cross -examination, inasmuch was supported by the police investigation reports and the MLC of Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Delhi. Tribunal has rightly preferred the statement of respondent duly corroborated by the documentary evidence, that is, police reports and the MLC. Learned counsel for the respondent has next contended that ticket was lost in the incident and said plea has rightly been accepted by the Tribunal, inasmuch as appellant had failed to lead any evidence to show that appellant was not a bona fide passenger of 2DPM passenger train.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Tribunal's record carefully and do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment for the reasons to follow.